Photo: Daniella ZalcmanIran disclosed the construction of a second nuclear facility sparking a debate on how the U.S. should respond. There is no paucity of advise coming from the U.S. intelligentsia, which seems to be rallying around an interventionist nationalism. Paul Wolfowitz asserted in the Financial Times that we should "confront Tehran now. "Elliot Abrams confidently suggests that the Iranian people wouldn't oppose a foreign use of force in their country. Senator Linsdey Graham argues that military action is a realistic last resort.
It's apparent that many want the U.S. to respond in some way, and while many are arguing for economic sanctions, others don't want to take the use of force off the table. The bottom line for those is that a nuclear Iran is absolutely unacceptable and, if all else fails, action would be necessary to obviate any nuclear program. However, with military action comes serious consequences.
There is little reason to believe that military action would have any lasting halting effect on their nuclear program. Robert Gates told CNN that "the reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time." How much time? Probably only a few years - obviously not enough time to outlive the regime. Instead, such an attack may rally an anti-American sentiment in Iran who, let's not forget, still finances militia groups across the region ready to sabotage U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Furthermore, the UN's nuclear agency is reporting that Iran already has the data to make a nuclear bomb. While, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities would only destroy their facilities, it doesn't destroy their information which would be used to build another facility shortly their after.
Most importantly, military action against Iran would become a self-defeating message. Secretary Gates also said:
"The only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons as opposed to strengthened."
In other words, Iran has to feel that it's safer to not have nuclear weapons. It would be counter-productive, then, to employ means of force in an effort to persuade them of this for the reason that any act of aggression only proves the necessity of a strong self-defense. An effective message of concern over their nuclear program may be neccessary but may also become self-defeating if it employs the same methods it works to block. Rather, any action against them should follow the same rules it hopes to enforce.
It seems, then, that economic sanctions should be the best course of action, right?
Perhaps, although this option also carries very little evidence to suggest that economic sanctions would have any persuasive effect on Tehran. For one thing, Iran has been dealing with economic sanctions since the Islamic revolution in 1979. For another, it's unclear how much Russia and China are willing to participate in sanctions considering their invested economic interests in Iran (reports estimate that China has $100 billion invested in Iran's oil).
More importantly, the effects of economic sanctions are always felt more by the people living under the leadership than the leaders themselves. This starves and disables hundreds of thousands of people, while also providing those leaders with more ammunition to incite enmity and paranoia towards the U.S.
What are our options then?
Though this might seem unsatisfactory for many, weapons inspections might be the effective measure. Weapons inspections work, provided they're given enough time, and Ahmadinejad says he will grant the IAEA speed access to the facility at Qom. Are we to disregard such compliance by burdening their economy or bombing their facilities, which again could prove to be disastrous.
Perhaps the mistake is assuming that the U.S. can do anything at all, or that we shoulddo anything. Our debate over what to do with Iran has left out an option - learn to live with a nuclear Iran. Remember, Iran has no history of starting wars, such a history belongs to Iraq and Israel. Iran has no rationale for attacking neighboring countries, especially since any attack would be met with collective retaliation. If anything, a nuclear Iran would be monitored more closely by its neighbors; Iran would be in a position where unpopular actions are no longer tolerated and economic sanctions would be easier to agree on.
Perhaps we have overestimated America's ability to secure the world. Moreover, perhaps we have overestimated the threat of a nuclear Iran to destroy it.